Cricinfo - Blogs - Ashes Buzz - Boycott is half-right about Fletcher

His one-day record looks passable on the surface, with 67 wins and 74 defeats in 146 matches. But scratch it and you find a lot of hollow victories. England’s favourite opponents in the past seven years have been Zimbabwe, with 23 meetings. They have won 19 of those, plus another 10 games against even smaller fry. Against other members of the big eight, Fletcher’s England have now played 105 matches with clear results, winning 35 and losing 70. There is no major nation against whom they are in the black – against Australia the score is 3-14, against India 7-14, against South Africa 5-9, against Sri Lanka 6-11, against Pakistan 8-11, against New Zealand 2-5, against West Indies 4-6. The figures look more like odds, but they’re not the sort of odds you would get on England.

Is it Fletcher, or is it England? Let’s look at their last 105 results against the big seven before he took over. Over a longer span (Jan 1991 to June 1999), and under four different coaches (Micky Stewart, Keith Fletcher, Ray Illingworth and David Lloyd), they won 52 and lost 53. In those days they were on broadly level terms with every other team except South Africa (6-12). Even against Australia, they trailed only by 7-10. So things have got worse. The Fletcher effect has been to turn parity into poverty.

We saw this on Saturday. England’s strategy was wobbly at best. The biggest problem was the middle order: call me old-fashioned, but I think it’s a good idea to have one. They abandoned the experiment with Andrew Flintoff at number three after one competitive match. They had Michael Yardy going in ahead of the much more experienced Paul Collingwood, which was quite baffling. They had Yardy and Jamie Dalrymple duplicating each other as bits-and-pieces spinners, rather than picking one of them alongside a proper spinner (Monty Panesar). Jon Lewis, who should have been England’s first-choice new-ball bowler after his fine displays against Pakistan, found himself relegated to fourth choice, carrying the energy drinks.

Andrew Strauss and Ian Bell produced a solid start, but predictably, they couldn’t raise the tempo. The opening partnership, like the notorious one between Boycott himself and Mike Brearley in the 1979 World Cup final, was not as good as it looks on the scorecard. Strauss and Bell are not a one-day opening pair.

In the field, England did well to reduce Australia to 34 for three, but from that point on, there was only one way to win, which was to take the other seven wickets. They had to set highly attacking fields and bowl like in Test cricket. Steve Waugh would have had three slips and a gully (or the other way round for Damien Martyn), not because the edges were flying, but as a form of intimidation. Flintoff only half-saw the need to attack. Fletcher should have seen it clearly and sent out a message. In this tournament, he has been a man without a plan. In Tests, he hardly ever is.

His strengths are patience, shrewdness and attention to detail, all of which suit the five-day game more than the one-day one. After the World Cup, he should step down from half his job. Unless England win it, which is not, on current form, even a faint possibility.

First of all, saying that you need a different set of skills for Test and one-day cricket is stretching it a bit. Patience, shrewdness and attention to detail all work in the one-day game as well as they do in the five-day game. The stereotype of a one-day game is a high-scoring slogfest, but not all one-day games are like that. A lot of them are played on sporting wickets, and the key there is a mix of aggression and consolidation, just like Test cricket. It's true that one-day cricket can change in a matter of five overs, but it's upto the captain, not the coach, to respond to those changes, because it's the captain who's running the game. If you're a shrewd captain you'll succeed in the one-day version as well. I believe that Fletcher is a fine coach and it's not his fault that England are playing badly in one-day internationals. If England need to change anything, it's their attitude towards one-day cricket. Before Ashes 2005, England beat Australia in a one-day series and in the Champions Trophy that preceded it. After the Ashes, one-day cricket has taken a back seat, which is why England aren't performing too well in that department.
England need to treat every game as equally important...be it a one-dayer or a Test match. A professional team should never prioritize between games...true champions play with the same intensity irrespective of the setting.

If not sacked, Fletcher's performance should be scrutinised if not penalised. The suspicion is that there is a comfort zone around the England setup where even to ask the question is heresy. The results clearly show that he has undoubtedly been the worst one day coach in the world since he has taken over. However much his record in test matches is quoted, the fact is that under him England are a pathetic one day side and show signs of getting worse by the game.
Secondly, the proposition that being constantly humiliated does not affect test match form is ridiculous. Anyone who has played sport at a serious level knows that a winning team feeds on success - whatever the arena and format. An extended run of being whipped by every international team in one dayers time and again is not going to produce a confident, aggressive team that believes it can beat the best team in the world in their own backyard.
There is something in our culture that makes us living on past glories. We still keep going on about 1966 in football ( though we have won nothing since) and before every tournament England are hailed as potential world beaters only to return with yet another mediocre performance. I fear we are going down the same road with cricket - hyping up a narrow 2-1 test victory in home conditions and letting it hinder our ability for fresh, radical thinking when it is needed. This thinking could include bringing in a specialist ODI coach to help shake up the thinking and help Fletcher out. Ultimately, we cannot be content with aiming for mediocrity in any form of the game and the constant "it doesn't matter as much as test matches" refrain is self defeating and does not befit professional sportsmen.

One day cricket requires both flexibility and flair - flexibilty to adapt quickly to the conditions and state of play and flair to produce shots to score at a high enough rate. Neither of these qualities are evident in the England team. You never see the batting order changed in response to on-field events, such as the need to score more quickly or to send in someone better at handling spin when the spinner comes on. In the field, you never see them go for all out attack when required, they always hedge their bets.

It's as if there is a game plan decided before the match and they stick to it, even if wickets are tumbling or the run rate has dried up. this is usually followed by panic, flinging the bat and getting out.

You see the same set of standard shots from our guys and not much invention, whereas other teams such as India and Pakistan have flair players who invent new shots to pierce the in-field and are flexible in their batting order.

Sadly, I think this rigidity is part of the British psychology. We see that same lack of flair and inventiveness in our football team as well, despite the obvious talent of the individual players...

Englands one day stats don't lie and its obvious Fletcher is struggling to find the right blend to make it work. But seperating the one day and test team roles is not the answer, and its stupid even by Boycs standards to suggest that we get rid of our most celebrated and successful coach before defending the Ashes it took so long to win back.

But I must admit everyone concerned with England (the fans included) just don't seem that bothered by losing at one day cricket. As long as we're winning test matches all is rosy(ish). And that goes for the World Cup too - and unless that attitude changes we're never going to compete on regular basis.

Geoff Boycott has never liked Fletcher that much and neither have I. He has ruined county cricket through his insistence that players rest between test matches. People can point to where England are now compared to where they were when Fletch too over as coach but like Shane Warne I don't think there is much need for a coach at international level. Fletcher is over-hyped and his role is over-hyped. Fletcher's one-day record is appalling, he has under-bowled players in the last few years, in particular Steve Harmison and James Anderson for fear that they may get injured which is totally irrational and this has backfired, bowlers have suffered through a loss of cricket, they need to bowl to build up their rhythm and confidence. He has his 'favourites' in the England side like Giles and GJones regardless of how well they are performing as cricketers and his reaction to Panesar's brilliant bowling at OT in the recent Test series was a disgrace.
His ruthless axing of Chris Read in the West Indies over 2 years ago was also disgrace. There has also been a lack of vision and purpose about England since last summer's Ashes, too much tolerance of mediocrity and here again Fletcher must take blame.
Picking Yardy ahead of Colly in the batting order the other day was another Fletcher mistake.
He is also dour, negative, humourless and his 'forward press' theories are a joke. As you can tell I don't respect him much and I think his coaching has become a liability.
Pathetic excuses: in the recent one-day series against Sri Lanka, Fletcher blamed injuries, after England's loss against Australia in the Champions Trophy it was that they're a 'young' side which they're not forgetting to mention that Australia's young players performed well. He also said that because Steve Harmlessson was a wicket-taker so inevitably he bowled the occasional loose ball. How many wickets has Harmy got in one-day cricket and Test cricket for that matter in the last 2 years? McGrath has got over 500 wickets and rarely bowls loose deliveries.
Time for Fletcher to go before he does any more damage.

I agree with the idea of splitting the coaching. By all means involve Fletcher in the coaching staff of the one day team, but bring in someone new to lead it. ODI cricket has evolved so much in the last 10 years, and England could do with the knowledge of someone that has been successful in this period. The immediate name that springs to mind is Adam Hollioake. Let him be in charge of the one day side, with Fletcher there to help him coach it. There is no way England should consider changing the Test coach at the present time - the only real bad result was Pakistan last winter. Sri Lanka were lucky to get pitches that helped Murali greatly, and even then it was only awful catching in the first test that stopped England winning the series. India and Pakistan at home were great results.

The Poms never get it. You either have to hit the ball without getting out and try to outscore the opponent or bowl the opponent out with a ball in your hand and your two feet. Trying to split the coaching, bringing in more support staff are none but reasons to distract from the lack of ability that the Poms seem to suffer from. Collingwood, Yardy, Dal(what)rymple and Plunkett? These guys are going to form the backbone after perpetual whiners Vaughan, Trescothick. Only Flintoff is a pure deserved cricketer. Compare that to talent in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka where kids play on the streets. England need to be relegated to the second tier of nations in cricket.

Nasser Hussian's comments were very apt, I feel:

"Boycott likes people who agree with him and there has always been a problem because Fletcher won’t bow down to Geoffrey or indulge him. Boycott has been waiting for this opportunity to go on the attack and he has used England’s poor one-day form as an excuse."

I think that the statistics above are revealing - there is no doubt that England have slipped back as a one day team under Fletcher compared to other sides around the world. However, England have improved drastically as a Test team, and that has always been the priority - we hold the Ashes for the first time in 20 years!! I'd take that over a return to the 90s and the reasonably competitive one day side of that era!

Fletcher is also in the process of developing the next generation: Mahmood, Cook, Bell, Anderson, Broad. Few other countries in world cricket have such a vibrant element of youth - certainly not Australia. Give him a chance to reap the fruit of his hard work!

The more I think about this, the more I believe that it is a problem with England.Today thanks to the Woolmers and the Chappells of this world and the media, we have a larger than life view of coaches and their success or failures.I think England is a very ordinary one day team.It is probably fair to believe that it has been easier for Fletcher to get results in that area.The problem is really one of attitude.England do not like one day cricket because they are not good at it.And it shows in everyone"s attitude, the coach included.And to us in India it was fairly obvious that they were merely making the numbers in the Champions trophy which is probably one of the reasons that they may return sooner than expected.

It's interesting that Fletcher's detractors seem reluctant to give him any credit for England's unquestionable improvement in test cricket while simultaneously laying all of the responsibility for the one day side's performances at his feet. To think of sacking Fletcher is ludicrous but it may that he needs an assistant who really understands how ODI cricket is now played. Could the problem be that Fletcher played ODI cricket in the 1980s, when it was a very different game, and so still has a mindset from that time, whereas he never played test cricket and so was able to bring entirely fresh thinking to his role with the test team. Just a thought...

Along with a pretty large number of England fans, I don't care in the slightest about one day cricket - I can't exactly explain why, but it just doesn't bother me that England are absolutely shocking in that form of the game (and will continue to be, seemingly). I think these matches make nice warm-ups for a test series and that's it, plus the fact that there is so flipping much one-day cricket makes it even less appealing.

Fletcher has generally been fantastic in the test match arena, and so will never be sacked unless England go downhill there too. I'm glad Geoffrey had a moan though, cos there's nothing worse than a media full of very nice people saying very nice things (eg. Ashley Giles only plays well when he gets slagged off).

Surely a lot of the problem lies within the county game in england. What does Pro40 bring to the table? Nothing relevant thats for sure.

Surely having a more concentrated county calender with 50 over games & the same powerplay structure would be a help. Secondly the idea of central contracts restricting the activity of England players is counter productive, as it allows too much mediocrity into the county circuit.

As for the coaching issue? Well Test and ODI cricket are so far removed from one another, they're almost different sports. I see no harm in different coaching staff.

The REAL issue I have at the moment is the fact that Flintoff is captain and not Strauss. Strauss had made the captaincy his own and was doing a great job. Let Fred get on with being the best all rounder he can be and don't put even more pressure on him.